Talk:Anarchism

A full list of talkpage archives can be found here:Talk:Anarchism/Archives

• Posts from Sept. 13 to Sept. 26 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive43. Hogeye 18:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Posts from 2006-09-27 to 2006-10-06 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive44. -- infinity0 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

de Cleyre

she was an individualist first, then under the influence of socialists like emma goldman adopted a more collectivist viewpoint about the same time she began identifying herself as an anarchist-without-adjectives. this is borne out by her own writings and by academia. In a 1894 article defending Emma Goldman, she states, "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist." Conversely, in a 1911 article entitled "The Mexican Revolution" she wrote that "The communistic customs of these people are very interesting and very instructive too...," in regards to Mexican Indian revolutionaries. Similarly, she instructs in "Why I am an Anarchist," that "the best thing ordinary workingmen or women could do was to organise their industry to get rid of money altogether . . . Let them produce together, co-operatively rather than as employer and employed; let them fraternise group by group, let each use what he needs of his own product, and deposit the rest in the storage-houses, and let those others who need goods have them as occasion arises." That is socialism Debridee. In 1912, of the paris commune she wrote, "making war upon the State, she had not made war upon which creates the State . . . the Commune respected property . . . [and] had left common resources in private hands . . In short, though there were other reasons why the Commune fell, the chief one was that . . . the Communards were not Communists. They attempted to break political chains without breaking economic ones." That shows that in 1912 she identified with socialism. Lastly, imagination debridee, i suspect that you are another thewolfstar clone. Blockader 18:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course Imagine Debridee is a wolfstar sock. It goes without saying (yet we're saying it). Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

All fine and well, just find (reputable) sources that support your claim. If different sources say different things, it can be added as well. Intangible 18:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, those are reputable sources my friend. her own writings. she changed throughout her life as people have a tendancy to do. Blockader 18:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but you try to synthesize her ideas by your own reading. You need a secondary source first, before you can give an example of de Cleyre's own words. Intangible 18:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Then find a secondary source that says she wasn't a socialist. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 18:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is now. It's written in an unbiased way. And she did indeed change her ideas over her lifetime. Her ideas were sometimes somewhat individualist and somewhat socialist. To call her a socialist, though, is incorrect, as this quote "Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism" clearly shows. I do think that the current version is the best and not biased in any direction. I don't know what you mean by a wolfstar sock, however..?? Imagination débridée 18:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well whoever you are i am glad someone finely added a section on anarchism-w/o-adjectives. i would've myself but since i adhere to that philosophy i thought it might be inappropriate or biased to insert it into the article. i too like the section as it stands now. as to the qoute you note above i think we would have to know when de cleyre wrote it to understand it in the context of her transitive beliefs but my VDC reader is at home so i can't check it. her later writings tend to reflect a collectivist/socialist tendency but i think her personal beliefs were somewhat a synthesis of socialist and individualist anarchism. that would be a good sentence for the section but i've never seen a secondary source arguing it. i think her views never reached their full maturity as she died rather young. Blockader 19:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that I was able to contribute something to this article that is productive. I also am an 'Anarchist without adjectives'. I didn't know it was wrong to add text to an article that coincides with one's beliefs, though obviously it would be wrong if it included unsound or biased material. Imagination débridée 19:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism without adjectives: anti-capitalist or not?

Did any self-proclaimed "anarchist without adjectives" tolerate capitalism? I ask because of Imagination débridée's last edit: [1] -- WGee 21:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A prominent anarchist w/o adj, Voltairine de Cleyre, said, "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." Further, one of the most important concepts behind this movement is that it had an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools and it focused on harmony between the various factions. Anarchism without adjectives was an attempt to show greater tolerance between anarchist tendencies and to be clear that anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic plan on anyone-even in theory. Imagination débridée 22:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually familiar with that quote, but supporting trade and private property is not tantamount to supporting capitalism: take Mutualism, for example. Anarchists without adjectives "tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools", as you said. But did early anarchists without adjectives believe that capitalism was a school of anarchism, or even compatible with anarchism? Unless you provide reliable sources to convince me otherwise, I'll have to side with logic and say no. -- WGee 23:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Capitalism" is state capitalism, not "anarcho-capitalism." They're two different things. Anarcho-capitalism 02:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case, then all anarchists, including anarcho-capitalists, are anti-capitalist, and there is no debate. But this distinction really only pushes the definitional conflict elsewhere. Someone like Tucker would have said that all capitalism was state capitalism, as the only capitalism that has ever existed depended for its creation on conditions imposed by the state. Free markets might be possible once the state was removed, but they would not be capitalist. Since there does not appear to be any consensus in an-cap circles about the relation between actually-existing capitalism and the purified anarcho-capitalism to come, the distinction doesn't appear to be particularly valid, even if it was useful. Libertatia 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would free markets not be capitalist? How are you defining capitalism?Anarcho-capitalism 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

When you are looking for the difference between individualist anarchist and mutualists, on the one hand, and many anarcho-capitalists, on the other, this is probably the single most important distinction to understand. Forget the LTV and whether or not people call themselves "socialist." In comparison, those are just distractions. Either capitalism is the system that has existed widely, or it is a largely unproven, abstract system, found mostly in dictionaries and in local exchange relations that, with regard to most of the economic activity on the planet, might be rightly considered counter-economic. If you want capitalism to mean both things, then you must think that current conditions are pretty much ok, that current markets are really pretty "free," etc. Historical capitalism has grown up with the state, and has depended on the state for support. Historical capitalism depends precisely on elevating the power of capital over that of labor, or of talent. Historical capitalism is what anarchists opposed when they sought solutions to "the social problem," etc. Genuinely free markets would look very different from historical capitalism. Some of the splits among market anarchists come from debates over whether improved laissez faire is sufficient to create really free markets, but, apart from some an-caps (who refuse to clarify whether they are defending the status quo or promoting a capitalism-to-come), I don't known, of know of, any market anarchists who are not opposed to historical capitalism. Libertatia 20:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

So we're speaking a different language. What you are calling "historical capitalism," I, including a lot of people in the mainstream, call a "mixed economy" - a mix of free market and state intervention. It sounds like you may be using Kevin Carson's definition, which is totally perverse and anachronistic. Today, capitalism is defined as laissez-faire. A laissez-faire system of owning and trading private property is by definition capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 20:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Today, capitalism is defined as..." Blah. Blah. Today, as the capitalism entry suggests, capitalism is defined in so many ways that "[t]he concept of capitalism has limited analytic value." The definition you attribute to Carson is the definition used by virtually all of the individualist and mutualist anarchists. Libertatia 22:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. It's not used by anarcho-capitalists. Most individualist anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. They individualist anarchists you're talking about are the few who are isolating themselves as dinosaurs, for who knows what reason. They should use the normal definition of capitalism, which is the one in today's dictionaries which define it as a private laissez-faire system. If you're going to say that a free market wouldn't result in capitalism, then you at least tell others what you mean by "capitalism" because it's apparently not consistent with the modern english language.Anarcho-capitalism 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Definitions_of_capitalism ... First of all, theres so many different definitions, theres not only one accepted definition of capitalism today as you wrote earlier. If you continue using that argument, youre just lying or at least chosing to forget facts that go against your conclusions... Just so you know. Secondly after all of this youre both going straigth back to the "most x are y" or "most x are z", which couldnt be more irrelevant for this encyclopedia! None of you have a clue about what youre talking about, and i guess theres not one source who's really made phonecalls to all x's! At least none of you have presented a source who does this. A compromise would be to include at least two definitions of capitalism in the anarchism article, each of them used when fit. --Fjulle 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism has actually posited at least two different definitions of "capitalism" in this very thread. 1) "Capitalism" is state capitalism, not "anarcho-capitalism." 2) Capitalism as voluntary exchange. When you actually look in the major dictionaries, you find some amazing things. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary just says that capitalism is a system which favors capitalists. The range of usage won't justify any narrower definition. My sense, from talking with self-proclaimed an-caps for years, is that some of them are anti-capitalist in the traditional sense, in that they oppose the same things that individualist anarchists oppose, but for some reason (which probably has as much to do with bad blood between factions in the late 19th century as anything) they cling to the word capitalism. Others are really half-hearted free-marketers, like the "laissez faire" apologists for exploitation and structurally unfree exchange against whom Tucker and the Liberty school positioned themselves. Libertatia 18:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"I'll have to side with logic and say no?" Please refrain from leaving snide comments. - MSTCrow 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That quote from De Cleyre predates her involvement in "anarchism without adjectives", and so only confuses the issue. Anarchism without adjectives was an attempt to unite anarchist thought (from individualism to communism) under a single umbrella. Essentially it tosses out the adjective so that the anarchist movement can operate co-operatively rather than competitively amongst one another. Anarcho-capitalism isn't generally considered part of that umbrella for the simple reason that the idea comes at a right angle to the aims of the anarchist movement, and accepting anarcho-capitalism as part of the movement would be counterproductive (particularly the contemporary anarchist movement, which is more often a reaction against corporate than political domination). So no, capitalism doesn't fall under "anarchist without adjectives" for the same reasons anarcho-capitalists aren't part of the anarchist movement. Owen 00:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you bring up logic let's look at this logically. First, please read again what I quoted above - specifically what is in bold font. Then look at the definition of capitalism (from that article).

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services, for profit in a competitive free market. Capitalism is really only another word for a laissez-faire economy. We have already agreed that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, even if it is not favored by many of this article's contributor's.

Logic says that since ans w/o adj declare that anarchists should not impose a preconceived economic plan on anyone-even in theory that this would extend to all forms of anarchism. Imagination débridée 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism without adjectives was a big tent, but it was also a specific movement at a specific time, with values in keeping with those of the anarchist movement of that time. This is a question for historical research, not abstract logic. If someone can dig up a self-proclaimed anarchist without adjectives who supported capitalism, that would be a start. Otherwise, what logic really tells us is that, given the almost uniformly anti-capitalist nature of the movement at the time, it's pretty likely "without adjectives" wouldn't have stretched to anarcho-capitalism, had it existed. Libertatia 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken to refer use the past tense. There are still plenty of people who call themselves anarchists without adjectives. I'm one of them. This strain of anarchism still exists. Chuck0 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you can tell an anarchist from a non-anarchist by if they are willing to let others live with their own favored economic system. - MSTCrow 00:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Right on, Bro. Exactly. Imagination débridée 00:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"We have already agreed that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, even if it is not favored by many of this article's contributor's [sic]." That's an oxymoron using carefully selected language. There is no agreement that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism; there is no agreement that de Cleyre advocated capitalism in any way. -- WGee 00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise there is no agreement that de Cleyre opposed "capitalism" in any way. Intangible 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there should be, as she was pretty consistent in her opposition. She speaks of "the horrible bondage of capitalism," of "the slavish conditions of capitalism," "the hells of capitalism, capitalism as "slaughter-house," etc. She writes that "...that is what capitalism has made of human well-being—a gambler's stake, no more."

There is no agreement that anarcho-socialism etc are forms of anarchism. However, anarcho-capitalists don't spend much time going on about it. - MSTCrow 01:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists don't use the phrase anarcho-socialism. That's a redundant phrase because all anarchists are anti-capitalist and favor some form of socialist or cooperative economics. Chuck0 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rejecting capitalism doesn't mean imposing a preconceived economic plan on anyone. Rejecting capitalism doesn't mean accepting socialism. Also, you say that anarchists w/o adjectives declare that, but that's only a line you wrote, which makes it a bit awkward. I'm an anarchist without adjectives myself, and I don't agree that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. An "anarchist" who embraces capitalism is as awkward to me as one who embraces the state (not to mention that anarcho-capitalist PDAs are barely distinguishable from the state). People disagree on the precise meaning of "anarchism" so it's hard to say who fits under the rubric of "anarchist without adjectives". To me it's the fundamental opposition to systems of domination, and has nothing to do with states or the government except to the extent these systems necessarily control people. But even anarchist without adjectives can't necessarily agree on what anarchism is, fundamentally, which means it really isn't so clear cut. Owen 00:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the proof that de Cleyre opposed capitalism, from her very beginnings. In her speech In Defense of Emma Goldmann [sic], delivered in 1893, de Cleyre said:

"As long as the working-people fold hands and pray the gods in Washington to give them work, so long they will not get it. So long as they tramp the streets, whose stones they lay, whose filth they clean, whose sewers they dig, yet upon which they must not stand too long lest the policeman bid them "move on"; as long as they go from factory to factory, begging for the opportunity to be a slave, receiving the insults of bosses and foremen, getting the old "no", the old shake of the head, in these factories they built, whose machines they wrought; so long as they consent to herd like cattle, in the cities, driven year after year, more and more, off the mortgaged land, the land they cleared, fertilized, cultivated, rendered of value; so long as they stand shivering, gazing thro' plate glass windows at overcoats, which they made, but cannot buy, starving in the midst of food they produced but cannot have; so long as they continue to do these things vaguely relying upon some power outside themselves, be it god, or priest, or politician, or employer, or charitable society, to remedy matters, so long deliverance will be delayed. When they conceive the possibility of a complete international federation of labor, whose constituent groups shall take possession of land, mines, factories, all the instruments of production, issue their own certificates of exchange, and, in short, conduct their own industry without regulative interference from law-makers or employers, then we may hope for the only help which counts for aught--Self-Help; the only condition which can guarantee free speech, (and no paper guarantee needed)." [2]

Would an anarcho-capitalist support the right of the workers to recuperate the means of production, to free themselves from the "the insults of bosses and foremen", to reclaim the food that they have produced? Does the tone of this speech sound sympathetic to capitalism, to you? If you read the speech, rather than pulled out one quote out of context, you would know that de Cleyre was anti-capitalist down to the roots. -- WGee 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just your interpretation. Unless you can find a secondary source making the same interpretation, it does not mean a thing. Intangible 01:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Intangible. And I agree with de Cleyre "to the root". Nobody hates these big monsters more than I do. Still the capitalists and corporations she was referrring to were state sanctioned and supported. Without the coddling and favoring that the current corps get it would be a hell of a lot harder for them to get themselves into a position of power. Who's to stop the forming of unions, for instance? Not the corps, surely. They would be powerless to do so. They need the workers just as much as the workers need the employment. I'm not even an an-cap. I just believe in the complete, uncompromised, freedom of all. Imagination débridée 01:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's merely my interpretation that de Cleyre supported the right of workers to "conduct their own industry without regulative interference from law-makers or employers..."? (emphasis added) She was very explicit, as you can see. You're not going to succeed in your goal to obstruct this information by simply acting naïvely. Regardless, primary sources are reliable sources; we therefore have legitimate evidence that the most prominent anarchist without adjectives was anti-capitalist. Yet we have not a single source to suggest that de Cleyre supported capitalism. In fact, there is still no consensus on whether or not capitalism is even compatible with anarchism. Are we to assume, considering all of this, that de Cleyre identified with capitalism? To do so defies all logic. -- WGee 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that primary sources cannot be used. I'm just saying that if you use them, you cannot make a synthesis out of them. I.e. making the conclusions you make. That is WP:Original Research. Intangible 02:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

De Cleyre was an anti-capitalst, as are all anarchists without adjectives. To suggest that she was in favor of capitalism is to live in a fantasy world. Chuck0 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing people should keep in mind here is that when the old anarchists said they opposed "capitalism" they were talking about state capitalism. They weren't talking about anarcho-capitalism. State capitalism and anarcho-capitalism are two different things. Just because an anarchists says he opposes state capitalism, it doesn't mean he/she would oppose anarcho-capitalism. Murray Rothbard opposes state capitalism too. He says it's "violent expropriation."Anarcho-capitalism 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any source for your bold claim that "when the old anarchists said they opposed "capitalism" they were talking about state capitalism". When they were talking about no rulers and opposing capitalism the obvious interpretation is that they were against rulers and capitalism. Capitalism means the wages system, exploitaition, rulers, bosses and plutocracy. All incompatible with anarchism. // Liftarn

It's probably a good idea, if this article says any particular anarchist opposes "capitalism" that it is stated how they define "capitalism." Otherwise, we really don't know what they mean by that.Anarcho-capitalism 02:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. That is precisely what I was saying. Thank you. So it therefore can't be concluded that de Cleyre was against anarcho-capitalism. Imagination débridée 02:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It can't even be concluded that she would be against "capitalism" as it is defined today, which is a free market system. The old individualist defined "capitalism" as state intervention, which is totally opposite as it's defined today.Anarcho-capitalism 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"One thing people should keep in mind here is that when the old anarchists said they opposed "capitalism" they were talking about state capitalism." Your argument is ineffectual because it is based entirely on this original research of yours. Even if your premise was factual, your argument would still be futile, for de Cleyre expressly rejected the concept of employers, not just capitalism. Therefore, how could she possibly have supported anarcho-capitalism, of which employers are an integral part? -- WGee 02:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No it is not "original research." There was no such thing as anarcho-capitalism (at least it never had a name), so it definitely not be concluded that opposition to "capitalism" entails opposition to anarcho-capitalism. You're wrong that Cleyre reject the concept of employers. She said that for individualist anarchists, "the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centered upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State." (Voltairine de Cleyre, Loving Freedom) The problem she had with individualist anarchism, when she decided to switch to "anarchism without adjectives" is that it supports private police. But, as far as I know, when she turned to "anarchism without adjectives" she did not change her position to opposing employee/employer, because employment is voluntary. It is totally consistent with anarchism without adjectives. Anarcho-capitalism 03:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I wondered why you didn't include a source. A quick Google search reveals this:

"As Voltairine pointed one [sic], individualist anarchists held that the 'essential institutions of Commercialism are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference by the State.' She notes that the 'extreme Individualist' argued that 'the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism' would exist under their form of anarchism." [3]

She was merely describing the beliefs of others; there is no evidence that she ever believed this herself. There is evidence, however, that de Creye opposed these beliefs:

"I do not give you that advice. Not because I do not think that bread belongs to you; not because I do not think you would be morally right in taking it; not that I am not more shocked and horrified and embittered by the report of one human being starving in the heart of plenty than by all the Pittsburgs;, and Chicagoes, and Homesteads, and Tennessees, and Coeur d'Alenes, and Buffaloes, and Barcelonas, and Parises not that I do not think one little bit of sensitive human flesh is worth all the property rights in N. Y. city; not that I think the world will ever be saved by the sheep's virtue of going patiently to the shambles; not that I do not believe the expropriation of the possessing classes inevitable, and that that expropriation will begin by just such acts' EMMA GOLDMANN advised, viz: the taking possession of wealth already produced; not that I think you owe any consideration to the conspirators of Wall Street, or those who profit by their operations..." [4]

If you will not accept this explicit rejection of capitalism and all that it encompasses, then you will have proven yourself to be absolutely intransigent. -- WGee 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

She was stating the beliefs of the individualist anarchists. She was an individualist anarchist, then she changed to "anarchists without adjectives." Your link is not where I got the quote, but from the pages of the book. As far as stealing food when starving, I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I would do the same thing. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to capitalism. There's less chance of anyone going hungry the market is free - if the system is anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism 03:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

...when she turned to "anarchism without adjectives" she did not change her position to opposing employee/employer... Have you been paying attention? In her first published work, when she was an individualist anarchist, she expressly rejected the concept of "employer". She eventually abandoned individualist anarchism because they embraced the necessity of the employer. Never in her life did she say that she supported the employee/employer hierarchy. -- WGee 03:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not why she abandoned individualist anarchism. Do you have a source for that? My source says she abandoned it because of private police. Individualists anarchists support the right of contract between people to do busisiness as employer and employee. That is, they are true anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 03:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

First, stop correcting yourself well after responses have already been given. Second, de Cleyre rejected property rights ("... one little bit of sensitive human flesh is worth all the property rights in N. Y. city...") and supported expropriation, insofar as to declare it inevitable: "... not that I do not believe the expropriation of the possessing classes inevitable, and that that expropriation will begin by just such acts' EMMA GOLDMANN advised..." She did not support expropriation only in times of desparation; she supported systematic expropriation: "Therefore, if I were giving advice, I would not say, "take bread", but take counsel with yourselves flow to get the power to take bread." (emphasis added) Your attempt to revise history, even without any reliable sources to support your revision, is purely disruptive. -- WGee 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Disruptive"? *laugh* Anarcho-capitalists support expropriation too. That doesn't mean they oppose anarcho-capitalism. Anything that's put in private hands because of state coercion is open for expropriation, according to anarcho-captialism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Who said that that the bread, in this case, was put in private hands because of state coercion? – certainly not she. The entire speech indicates that she supported the expropriation of wealth so that everyone's needs may be satisfied, whether to prevent hunger or whatever else. That is contradictory to anarcho-capitalism, whereas it is an integral part of socialism. Moreover, in the emphasized text above, she said "flow to get the power to take bread", where "power" is control over the means of production. -- WGee 21:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That must have been in her communist phase. You know women. They're always changing their minds.Anarcho-capitalism 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you support both capitalism and sexism. No big surprise there. If you're also a racist you have covered the three major forms of opression. // Liftarn

Can't take a joke, can you?Anarcho-capitalism 17:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to emphasize as somebody who is a prominent anarchist who self-identifies as an anarchist without adjectives that all of us are anti-capitalist. Chuck0 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to your statement below that "capitalism requires a state in order to function," you don't know what capitalism is, or you have some really strange definition that the rest of the world doesn't subscribe to. Capitalism is by definition a laissez-faire system.Anarcho-capitalism 18:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Keynes had consigned the laissez faire ideology to the lumber room of 'vulgar economics' as early as November 1924... See J. M. Keynes, Collected Writings vol IX, e.g. p. 277 ... : 'This is what the economists are supposed to have said. No such doctrine is really to be found in the writings of the greatest authorities. It is what the popularisers and the vulgarisers said.'" Pyllis Deane, The Evolution of Economic Ideas (Cambridge, 1978), p. 176n1.

I think you would struggle to find a single reputable economist, let alone a political scientist or sociologist, who defines capitalism as pure laissez faire. VoluntarySlave 02:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not defined as "pure" laissez-faire, but it's defined as laissez-faire. "Laissez-faire" is not a "pure" term. It just means that the state generally lets the economy run itself. It doesn't set the price or tell people what they have to produce. That's what capitalism is. Capitalism is a private system, as opposed to socialism where the state dictates everything. "Pure" laissez-faire would be that taken to an extreme, which would be anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you can't really be an "anarchist without adjectives" if you oppose capitalism, since by definition anarchists without adjectives don't support or oppose any particular economic system.Anarcho-capitalism 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Let this soak in

Please read this carefully:
"Anarchists without adjectives tended either to reject all particular anarchist economic models as faulty, or take a pluralist position of embracing them all to a limited degree in order that they may keep one another in check. Regardless, to these anarchists the economic preferences are considered to be of "secondary importance" to abolishing all authority, with free experimentation the one rule of a free society." Imagination débridée 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody contensts the fact that the rejection of coercive rulership is the central tenet of anarchism; the debate is about whether or not capitalism is compatible with this tenet. Anyway, the implication of your contribution—that anarchism without adjectives synthesizes opposing ideologies, from anarcho-communism to individualist anarchism to anarcho-capitalism— is incorrect. Anarchism without adjectives unites different types of anarchists around their common goal, but it does not attempt to reconcile their economic differences. It does not assert that all anarchist economic models are faulty in some way, nor does it embrace all anarchist economic models to a limited degree. It is completely neutral with regard to anarchist economics in order to preclude divisions, neither endorsing all systems nor criticizing all systems. -- WGee 04:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's probably more accurate to say that it's an attempt to organise all anarchists based upon what they oppose and not to prioritise what most anarchists recognise are theoretical ideas about future organisation. As all anarchists up to the "anarcho"-capitalists opposed capitalism, then unity about opposition to capitalism is a feature of Anarchism without adjectives. The criticism of "anarcho"-capitalism isn't what they propose, but what they refuse to oppose - capitalism. This is not simply an economic argument, but a tactical one. As Chomsky points out, to remove the stage without removing capitalism would lead to an even greater form of oppression than we have now - a return to the inequalities and exploitation of the early industrial era before anarchists and others forced the state (through trade unions, etc) to soften the effects of unrestrained capitalism. Everyone but the most extreme anarchists recognises that, while the state is not desirable, no-one would wish to remove the victories drawn from the state, including restrictions on working hours, workplace health and safety laws, the end of forced child labour, etc. Donnacha 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly true, Donnacha. To clarify, I said that "Anarchism without adjectives unites different types of anarchists around their common goal...", wherein their common goal is the abolition of coercive authority (including capitalism, of course). So, in essence, we were saying the same thing. -- WGee 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

With all the willful misinterpretation of everything around here, I just wanted to shore up the argument as much as possible ;) Donnacha 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The old individualist were referring to "state capitalism" when they said they opposed capitalism. They weren't talking about free market capitalism. It's like saying you oppose communism when the only idea of it you've ever seen was state communism. From that, you can't conclude that someone would oppose voluntary communism (if there is such a thing).Anarcho-capitalism 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Since capitalism arises naturally if the state doesn't interefere, then I guess anti-capitalist anarchists are resigned to support an intrusive state forever in order to prevent capitalism. That's why anti-capitalist anarchism is a big joke.Anarcho-capitalism 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. 'Nuff said. Donnacha 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's naive to think that people would not engage in a trade if the state didn't interfere. To think everyone would be content to work without being paid, and share all their goods "according to need" instead of trading is really really naive. Trade makes sense.Anarcho-capitalism 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, my politics are largely based on my experience of people. I think I've said before that I grew up in Ireland. I now live in London. I'm a senior trade unionist. I spend my entire life in the midst of people who would prefer a society based on fairness and not on competition. So, it's not naive, it's experience. It's knowledge. You, on the other hand, come across like someone who doesn't actually know any real people. Donnacha 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism requires a state in order to function. Capitalists understand this, but the so-called "anarcho-capitalists" can't even understand the basics of how capitalism operates. Chuck0 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would capitalism require a state in order to function? Capitalism is simply voluntary trade of good and services, with the goods being the product of labor from transforming the natural resources of the earth into useful things. If there were no state, people would still be trading unless someone, such as "anarcho"-communists, forcefully stopped them. Anarcho-capitalism 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What does voluntary trade have to do with capitalism? // Liftarn

Everything. That's how capitalism is defined. Capitalism is by definition of "free market" system, meaning system of voluntary trade. Anarcho-capitalism 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is, in fact, not consistently defined that way, even in reputable dictionaries. Check the OED. In any event, you are so attached to the word "capitalism" that you're twisting and turning to defend it, with the result that you have yourself defined it in at least a couple of ways recently. Libertatia 18:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The OED defines it as a system that favors the existence of private ownership of means of production ("capitalists"). However, that's not all capitalism is. It includes trade as well. Without trade there is no capitalism. And without private property there can be no trade.Anarcho-capitalism 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But there is nothing in that definition of capitalism which clarifies the terms of exchange, the nature of "freedom" in the market, etc. If you want to go with the most "popular" understanding of the term, then "capitalism" for most people is what we have, and what you want to call (with some justification) a "mixed economy." But once you start talking about "capitalism" as something that naturally emerges under conditions of freedom, while at the same time talking about it as an ideal, then, again, i'm not sure what you're defending and what you are against. The traditional anarchist position is that the concentrations of capital necessary to have anything like actually-existing capitalism required a state. (At least anti-capitalists talk about capital in their definitions.) Traditionally, anarchists have not wanted capitalism, because they've been uninterested in elevating capital above labor, talent, etc. It's possible to disagree with the account of the origins of capitalism, and think that things are pretty good, but we need to get rid of the state to make them better. That seems to be one an-cap position, and it's at least coherent. But it is on no firmer ground, and has no broader currency, than the traditional anarchist account. I see you just added a point about "private property." The point is incorrect. All that is needed for trade is some set of conventions about property. Private property is far, far, far from the only workable solution (assuming, for the moment, that it is a workable solution.) Any system of conventions covering possession would also function. Libertatia 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's utterly false that there is nothing in the definition of capitalism about freedom in the market. Most definitions of capitalism point out that it is a free market system. For example, Merriam-Webster.com defines it as "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a FREE MARKET." And, not my point about private property is not incorrect. If you have the right to trade, then that means you a right to private property. What is traded other than private property? Private property means that which is owned by person which he has the right to dispose of as he wishes, whether it is to keep it or to sell it. "Possession" is incompatible with trade. That's why most of the old individualist anarchists didn't advocate trade of land (because of being misled by Proudhon), but supported private property in other products of labor. Anarcho-capitalism 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

More bullshit, 'nuff said. Donnacha 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Amen. -- WGee 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess they're dumbfounded. PlayersPlace 01:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your tendency to cling to your true belief and dismiss non-concurring trends is a terrible approach towards history, AC, especially for its interpretation. "Misled by Proudhon" indeed. We are here to represent history, not to judge it. --GoodIntentions^talk 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputes about which schools are not anarchist

For any position within anarchism, you can probably find at least one person who claims that it is not "really" anarchist. To include claims that a school is not anarchist within that school's description is, therefore, unlikely to be helpful. In particular, it strikes me as likely to lead to the he-said/she-said style, where critics of a school add more and more of their criticisms, then the school's defenders respond; that leads to long, unencyclopedic articles and edit wars. So I think it would be a good idea to keep claims that a school is not anarchist out of that school's section. Perhaps an introductory paragraph to the Schools of Anarchism section could mention that no school (with the exception, perhaps, of mutualism) is universally accepted by anarchists as anarchist. The particularly polarised debate, on capitalism and communism, can then be addressed in the Issues in Anarchism section. To that end, I've removed the claims in each school's section that it is not "really" anarchist. VoluntarySlave 03:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Something like that sounds good to me. If there is a criticism of one school then a criticms needs to be allowed for the other schools. Since people delete criticisms out of one school and leave the other, it may be a good idea to take them all out like you say. You mentioned something about mutualism not being disputed, but it has. For example Meltzer says mutualists are not anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with VoluntarySlave on this, also. Sounds like a peace maker and a good solution. Imagination débridée 04:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes - MSTCrow 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea. Keep the spiteful shit out. However, I do think that minor schools should have smaller sections. Atm I actually think the balance is OK. -- infinity0 00:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that there is a distinct and unbridgable gap between the anti-capitalists and anarcho-capitalists, of which the claim that an-cap is non-anarchistic is merely the most visible part. All the claims and counterclaims of anarchisticness come from this initial divide, and only a solution to the treatment of this divide will solve the problem. I find this proposal a touch naive. --GoodIntentions^talk 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a "gap" between all kinds of anarchism. Anarcho-capitailsm is different from others just as others are different from still others. PlayersPlace 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't. The gap between anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism is a very different kind. Anarchism has generally been unified on what anarchists oppose and divided on tactics and, ultimately, divided on ideas about future organisation. The latter is actually the least important element, because they're ideas, proposals, guesses, not dogma. "Anarcho"-capitalism is different not because it proposes something different, but what its advocates oppose, or rather refuse to oppose, namely capitalism, puts it beyond the pale for most anarchists. Donnacha 08:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How are you defining capitalism?Anarcho-capitalism 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Donnacha and GoodIntentions philosophically but for practical purposes in this article I agree somewhat with VoluntarySlave. As long as the capitalism section in "Issues" continues to reflect that most anarchist writers, schools, and arguably anarchists regard ancap with skepticism than i can live with it. Blockader 15:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Anarcho-capitalism shouldn't even have a section on this page at all. If 'twere removed altogether then this issue wouldn't arise. More seriously, AC is disputed to a far greater degree than any other brand, and this shouldn't be papered over. Look at the archives of this page and you'll see endless disputes about whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. No such debates about communists, mutualists, syndicalists or anyone else.Bengalski 16:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- Vision Thing -- 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You've only proven that on the talk page the anarcho-collectivists are intolerant of any mention of anarcho-individualism's existence, i.e. anything they personally disagree with. If we removed all sections of anarcho-collectivist thought, we wouldn't have an issue with classifying them as anarchist either, but my objective is not to erase schools of thought I disagree with. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. - MSTCrow 20:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Spilt

Article is very bloated. How about splitting into (Anarchism (ie. anarchist origins etc) and Anarchist theory)? -- infinity0 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A split looks feasable at first glance, but I doubt that it is. This article isn't bloated compared to other political movement pages - just take a look at marxism, for instance. --GoodIntentions^talk 01:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

would a split be beneficial to cohesiveness? i don't think so. actually, for such a bloated political doctrine/movement/ideal i don't think the article is all that bloated. Blockader 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, an article we do still need is anarchist movement. That way we could give extensive coverage of that part of the topic without bloating the main article. Obviously, the two overlap to such an extent that much would have to remain, but it would allow us to trim down those areas without having to worry about any loss of useful information. It'd be nice to have an article focusing on the contemporary anarchist movement, since that's an area that has always felt somewhat neglected here. Owen 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there is already (extensive) coverage of this in the anarchism article now. Maybe this is the material that can be split? Intangible 20:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Economic

Not a major enough issue to be included in the intro. Many other issues exist; no reason for this to be highlighted. -- infinity0 00:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That is the single most important issue. All anarchists oppose the state but beyond that they all advocate different economic systems and that's what makes them the kinds of anarchism that they are. PlayersPlace 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How often do you hear anarchists argue about capitalism? There are far more major issues within anarchism than capitalism. Ancapism is the only "form of anarchism" that supports capitalism, and it happens to have the smallest number of members. Please avoid giving minor opinions WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- infinity0 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it is the most important division. If this article referred exclusively to anti-capitalist anarchism I would have considered the most important distinction the degree of communality of public space (the continuum running more or less communism-collectivism-syndicalism-mutualism-individualism). As the article stands the distinction needs to be made, but perhaps not in those words. --GoodIntentions^talk 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Economics is the most important area by which various forms of anarchism differ. If it wasn't for economics issues we wouldn't need to have Schools section. -- Vision Thing -- 17:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

historical events

User:Blockader added two events back from the last 10- years. How are these historical? Intangible 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Seattle marked a new era in political events and will be remembers as the birthplace of the international movement against globalisation and the Argentinian riots marked the end of the triumphant neoliberalism in Latin America. Both are major events that mark turning points in history and, thus, are historical events. Donnacha 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought Intangible's reason for removing them was that they weren't associatted with anarchism, which i disagree with, not that they weren't historical. i do think they can be considered historical events, especially WTO, but no matter what they shouldn't have been removed without some discussion first. i am for leaving them in. Blockader 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Donnacha thinks they are not anarchist events, but anti-globalization events. I think they are not historic events, because: a) the events only happened recently b) there are no sources describing the events as such. Intangible 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If it happened in the past (and was written about) it's historical, even if it happened yesterday. It's called recent history. The Seattle WTO protests definitely had to do with anarchism--they were a catalyst for the anarchist movement and gave us a (relatively) large ammount of mainstream attention. It's even mentioned in the Encyclopedia Brittanica's article on anarchism. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly is a qualitative difference between "historical" in the sense of "history-changing" and "historical" in the sense of a record of (significant) events. --AaronS 03:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of Schools of Anarchist Theory

I disagree they should be put in alphabetical order. Sure it is the criterion within which there can be no dispute (a comes before b and c after b), but it is not necessarily the fairest approach and it is definitely not consensual. I believe there are other things to consider. There could be a case where a school that is much less representative, and most far off of what is generally considered to be the core principles of anarchism, appears on top. Some people might find this criterion more reasonable.

I propose to try to put the names of schools in order of historical importance. I think we can find a relatively objective criterion that goes beyond personal conviction. Speaking on my part, even though I am pretty much "pro-leftist", for example, I believe that perhaps anarcho-syndicalism should be on top.Maziotis 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the first schools should be "Syndicalist and Individualist", where you will find the fundamental anarchist debate around individualism vs collectivism, and where most of the anarchist principles are found within the context of the first currents to be formulated in anarchism. Then there could be the femminist school, which is old and points out to principles that cannot be found in the first two. Next, I think it would be fair to choose something outside the sphere of “collectivist” or “socialist” anarchist schools, like Primitivist and Eco, which may be consider more recent, but are on their own solid anarchist conceptions. I believe this four are the fundamental schools in which most people see themselves. The other schools should be put next and are of course of importance. “mutualist” school, for example, comes from Proudhon, a father of anarchism, and historically has its weight. Capitalist is much more of a curiosity within the anarchist movement than anything else. The historical argument is most of it base on libertarian ideas, which are not the same thing.

This is simply a suggestion that I would like to discuss with the rest of you.Maziotis 17:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Anarchism"

Most anarchists are simply unaware of "anarcho-capitalism" and the ones who know about it reject it as an absurdity. The anthology that I'm working on which covers North American anarchism of the past 40 years will have no coverage of "anarcho-capitalism." Otherwise, I think you all are doing some original research here when it comes to determining which school of anarchist thought is the most important. The order of sections on the main page never bothered me, but there should be some kind of historical order to it. You could rank schools according to the number of people who've used those labels, but data is scarce. The surveys we've done at Infoshop have found that most anarchists identify as anarcho-communists, plain ole anarchists, and anarchists w/o adjectives. Anarcho-syndicalism has been an important school of thought for many decades, but the numbers for them aren't as high as people think. The number of primitivists is smaller still. Many anarchists identify with multiple labels, so probably some other factor such as history should determine ordering. Chuck0 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you write an "anthology" of anarchism if you're not going to discuss anarcho-capitalism at all? By letting your bias getting in the way of being a true scholar. That's how. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist but I oppose any attempt to hide that it exists. I sure won't be lending your anthology any credibility because I'm sure the rest of it will be infected with your selective bias. PlayersPlace 23:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple - "anarcho"-capitalism isn't anarchism by any reasonable understanding of anarchism, particularly with an historical perspective. A book on cars doesn't need to mention bicycles, even if someone decides to build a two-wheeled "car". Donnacha 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Anarcho-syndicalism - was it an either/or question? Most syndicalists are also communists or collectivists. Donnacha 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some slight issues. Firstly, syndicalism isn't really a school, it's a tactical form of organisation without its own theoretical outcome - in Catalonia, for example, it led to collectivism and communism. Secondly, "feminist" wasn't orginally a "school" either - Emma Goldman introduced ideas that became radical feminism much later, however, she placed her arguments squarely within her overall attempts to synthesis a variety of issues. They were a development of anarchist ideas into the personal realm, along with her gay rights issues, etc. She was very clear that she saw true women's liberation as part and parcel of anarchist revolution and was primarily expanding upon the needs and implications of human liberation for women (something lacking in the concepts of most of the men before her except Godwin). Donnacha 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The current order is roughly chronological, which is about as neutral as we're going to get. I would prefer to see anarcho-capitalism given its own section at the end, as it was not simply an outgrowth of the individualist tradition, and was the latest of the major schools to develop. Syndicalism was historically and organizationally significant and, while its notions about property may resemble that of other schools, its organizational approach was indeed novel. Libertatia 23:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really, it was a development of the organisational forms of the Jura Federation, from whom Bakunin got many of his ideas. It was anarchism developing with the labour movement rather than a new form as such. It was very much a part of the competition with the Marxists from the First International onwards. Donnacha 23:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you about anarcho-capitalism. It is right smack in the middle of the individualist tradition, never mind being an "outgrowth." PlayersPlace 01:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)